Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

The Hon. BOB NANVA (20:01:11):

I move:

(1)That this House notes that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have an ongoing and unique connection to land and country.

(2)That this House recognises that on 14 October 2023, the Australian people have an important opportunity to answer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' generous call for constitutional recognition through a "Voice to Parliament".

(3)That this House calls for a "Yes" vote in the upcoming referendum.

There are only three more sleeps until Australians vote on the first referendum of this century. It is a rare privilege and one that places us at the crossroads of history—to vote for recognition, listening and better results by supporting the gracious call from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for constitutional recognition through an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Every morning in this place, we rightly acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and pay our respects to their Elders past and present. Those words, which are both necessary and yet, on their own, insufficient, embrace three concepts: acknowledgement, respect and custodianship—acknowledgement that the culture of our First Nations existed many thousands of years before European colonisation, respect for their descendants who continue to practice that culture to this day, and recognition of their custodianship of land, the sovereignty of which was never ceded. The words and concepts are not lofty but a bare recognition of simple facts.

The next step is to move beyond these words that are repeated in this place and others and demonstrate that we are prepared to listen and act. The referendum on Saturday is a substantive opportunity for that. It is a chance for the majority of Australians, who are not Indigenous, to back words with deeds and to build a bridge between acknowledgment and respect, between words and deeds. We can never completely say that we acknowledge our First Nations if we do not commit to the deeds that back our words. It is not before time that acknowledgement moves beyond that.

Our Constitution is a breathing, not a static, document, one that by its nature must and has evolved with time. A vote to amend it is part of its natural evolution. I can think of no better way for our modern Commonwealth's founding document to evolve than by recognising, respecting and providing a voice to this continent's original inhabitants, who have been custodians of these lands for tens of thousands of years, enshrining that recognition and voice in a way that transcends day-to-day politics and the whims of individuals. A modern document respecting an ancient culture—I could not think of a fairer and more balanced evolution of the Constitution than that.

It will be an evolution, not an undefined revolution as some would suggest, which will not create new powers, will not create a new branch of government and will not be a mechanism that usurps our elected parliamentarians. It is the next step in recognition. It is about advice and about Parliament continuing as decision‑maker. Surely, we can envisage a circumstance in which the wisdom of one of the world's great living cultures has a place in our Constitution and a say over its own future.

There is much we should be proud of in this country. But referendums often give us the opportunity to reflect more deeply on it for the first time. As Noel Pearson recently told the nation, the referendum question is a mirror. It asks voters to look at themselves as much as at the text on the ballot paper. Such is the manner of constitutional referendums. They ask us to consider something bigger than a party, a candidate or a platform. In this case, it is asking us to listen.

The entrenched disadvantages Indigenous Australians continue to face, including a shorter life expectancy, a lower level of education and employment, and a higher incarceration rate, have not been fixed with current methods, and they will not change through good intentions alone. Too many years of lived experience informs us of this. But we know that outcomes are improved when people directly affected by decisions have a seat at the table and a say, and there is extensive evidence showing that Aboriginal-led policy and service delivery approaches deliver greater benefits than government-led approaches. I hope that, in three days' time, we will seize the opportunity in front of us to move forward in tackling this gap in outcomes that has persisted for generations. I call on all members of this place to join me in supporting a yes vote in the upcoming referendum—yes to the next step of reconciliation, yes to moving from talking to listening, yes to turning words into deeds, and yes to making our next deeds better, and better still.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (20:06:13):

This motion is unusual in a couple of respects. It is a dead horse copping another flogging. This thing is going down on Saturday, I have to report to you, unless these polls are wrong by 10, 15 or 20 per cent, and public sentiment too, of course. Referenda are very hard to be carried in Australia, in the Commonwealth Parliament, because you need a majority of votes in a majority of States, and it is doubly hard for a Labor government to get this sort of thing through. So the first thing you have to do is provide detail and not ask the voters to sign a blank cheque.

Quite frankly, the detail has been hopelessly confusing. Sometimes the Prime Minister will say, "This is an advisory committee." He can set those up without legislation—let alone changing the entire Australian Constitution to set up a committee. Committees are a dime a dozen. Look at this place. We will put up a committee at any time you want, on any subject. If it is just a committee, why do you need to change the Constitution? At the other end of Albanese's rhetoric, if it is something big and important, give us the detail of how it operates. What will the Parliament do? What legislation will empower the Voice? Is it about rewriting Australian history, reparations, compensation or land rights? The latest provision of the legislation that has gone through for the referendum, which is totally open-ended, means that it could be about anything.

This debate is novel in that we are reflecting on something the Australian people will decide. Obviously, the people of New South Wales will have a big say in this, come Saturday evening. The Coalition front bench is entirely absent. The Hon. Rachel Merton here is the acting leader of the Liberal Party for this particular debate, which is a massive and well-deserved promotion. But I rather suspect that the Coalition has adopted an even more unusual position of saying, on a big national question, "We will have no position." They have an open vote. It is not a life-or-death conscience vote; it is just one where they are scared to take a party position that would be binding on their members. I suppose that the Hon. Bob Nanva, ever the strategist, has worked out that, if some helpful soul here calls a division, he will have the novelty of some Coalition people on one side and some on the other, and he will flush them out. Politics is in part about flushing them out.

Time expired.

More substantially, the Voice referendum has little prospect of being carried. That seems self-evident. In any case, for these Indigenous issues, we have had committees in the past. I remember being part of the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission [ATSIC], which was the bold attempt of the Hawke and Keating governments to listen and learn. It ended up as a hotbed of nepotism and corruption. It just did not work at any level, and just about everyone in the Labor Party and everyone in the Coalition were committed to its abolition. If the Voice is the son or daughter of ATSIC, it will be a lemon. But we will never really get to find out unless someone is foolish enough to go against the wishes of the Australian people and try to legislate it. []

The Hon. RACHEL MERTON (20:09:24):

I speak in opposition to the Hon. Bob Nanva's motion concerning this Saturday's referendum on the Voice. There is little doubt that the vote is one of the most consequential in Australia's history. In recent weeks the yes campaign has tried to conceal that the Voice, as outlined in the Uluru statement, is the first step in a process, followed by treaty and truth-telling. The Prime Minister has said some 34 times that he would implement the Uluru statement in full. He even wore the t-shirt saying "voice, treaty, truth". The Prime Minister and the yes campaign claim that the Voice is simply an advisory body, that the vote is simply about recognition and that the Australian people have nothing to worry about. That is disingenuous nonsense.

Any review of what is being proposed suggests that the Australian people are being asked this Saturday to change our democracy, both fundamentally and permanently. We are being asked to dismantle the basis of our liberal democracy, which has been built on the basis that whether you are First Fleet, First Nations or one of our most recent citizens, you are an Australian and an equal before the law, with the same rights and the same liberties. Bob Hawke, a man revered on the other side of the Chamber, famously said during Australia's bicentenary:

In Australia there is no hierarchy of descent; there must be no privilege of origin. The commitment is all. The commitment to Australia is the one thing needful to be a true Australian.

I agree with Bob. I believe that we should aspire to a country where race is irrelevant and is not entrenched in the Constitution forever, which is what the Voice will do. I cannot support a reform that will constitutionalise racial privilege and undermine the principles of equality and non-discrimination. I also cannot support a reform with section 129, which will potentially radically alter the division of Commonwealth and State powers in our Constitution by centralising more power to Canberra. I am a proud no voter. I have campaigned for a no vote across the State over many months.

I have seen the division this proposal has caused in our society. The debate has been characterised by an often condescending yes campaign that appears agitated and dismissive when Australians have the temerity to ask legitimate questions about the Voice. I acknowledge the courage of the many thousands of Australians, led by the outstanding Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine, who have said "no". The Voice is divisive, risky and unknown. It is no modest change to the Constitution. The Voice has already divided Australia. I will be voting no to the Voice this Saturday, and I urge members to similarly reject the motion.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (20:12:17):

I speak in support of the Hon. Bob Nanva's motion and the Voice. There is absolutely nothing to fear here. I reject completely the assertions made by the previous speaker, the Hon. Rachel Merton. The Voice is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation to unify. It is an opportunity for us to come together. It is an opportunity for our nation to honour the original custodians of our land, who deserve special recognition and a special place in the Constitution because of their unique position as the original people of the land. That is how nations in a similar situation to ours have dealt with this across the world. Australia is the last nation to have an honest conversation with its First Nations people about the way it gives them a voice and involves them in its legal, constitutional and governmental arrangements. New Zealand, Canada, Norway and other nations have come to terms with this.

In 2019 I was lucky enough to be at the tenth international human rights conference in Tromsø in Norway. As part of the Australian delegation, I had the opportunity to meet with the Sami people, who have an indigenous Parliament. They meet with other Sami indigenous members from multiple nations, not just Norway. The voice has given them the opportunity to have a say on government policy that affects them through their Parliament. That is the opportunity that we have here in Australia. Frankly, we have tried all sorts of other things, and none of them have worked. They have resulted in everything from massacres, the Stolen Generations and policy failures. Bodies like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission that did work were abolished when there was a change of government.

Time expired.

Indigenous Australians are entitled to constitutional recognition that is permanent. It is utter rubbish to hear the Opposition say that, on the one hand, there is not enough detail and then, on the other hand, complain that it is going to be constitutionally entrenched. How do I even respond to that? It is a ridiculous argument; it makes no sense. It is such a shame that the Opposition cannot get on board with this initiative. In generations, people will be looking back at this and think, "Why on earth did they have that position?" []

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose):

Before I call anyone else, members in the Chamber are quiet and listening to the debate. I ask people in the President's gallery to do so as well.

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (20:15:36):

I speak in opposition to the Hon Bob Nanva's motion. I listened intently to the Hon. Cameron Murphy just now and thought to myself, "He speaks so well." If only he was in the advisory box with Anthony Albanese in the Federal Parliament, there might be a better spokesperson for the Voice than good old Albo. Part of the problem is that the chief marketing officer, or the chief person who should be selling the Voice to Parliament, Anthony Albanese, has failed to convince Australians that it is a proposal worthy of support. Whether it is the Essential poll or the Roy Morgan survey, the latest polling makes it clear that there is no way that the referendum will get up.

It is beyond belief that the New South Wales upper House would move a motion that proposes we support the yes vote and suggests that everybody in New South Wales should vote yes, when it is clear that the people of New South Wales are most likely going to vote no come this Saturday. There are 3.5 million people who have already voted in pre-poll to date. There have been two million applications for postal votes. I have been out in south-west Sydney, and I am proud of the community that I once represented because so many people, particularly Labor voters, are telling me that they will not be voting in support of this come Saturday. They will not be hoodwinked by the Federal Labor Government. They will not be hoodwinked by their Federal Labor MPs, who are relatively silent on this issue.

There has been very little campaigning for the yes vote by local Federal members of Parliament in south‑west Sydney because they know that the referendum is going to lose this Saturday. They are just waiting for Albanese to lose to potentially roll him down the track. That is what will happen in a couple of months. For the people of New South Wales, 14 October will be a significant day in history. It is a day when Australians can stop the virtue signalling and stop a two-tier race system from happening in Australia. They can come down to their polling station and vote no. That is exactly what will happen this Saturday. I have been to a number of rallies around New South Wales, whether it is in Taree, Wagga Wagga or Sydney. Everywhere I go, people are telling me that they will confidently vote no. That is exactly what will happen.

Ms Cate Faehrmann:

Because you're at the no rallies.

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK:Time expired.

When The Greens call out people for being racist and stupid, you wonder why everyone has had a gutful. People are tired of name-calling. I have no doubt that Australians will come out and confidently vote no, particularly in areas like south-west Sydney. []

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (20:18:47):The Daily Telegraph

I support the Hon Bob Nanva's motion on the Voice to Parliament. People would already know that if they read "The Sauce" in on Sunday. Respected Anaiwan Elder, Steve Widders, recently appealed for people to vote yes, saying that things are not working the way they are. He went further saying, "The Voice is about recognising that the Aboriginal people have been here for a long time, and we need to hear from them." I was particularly inspired by his words, "Nothing about us without us." Recently in Tamworth, Councillor Marc Sutherland, the first Gomeroi person elected to Tamworth Regional Council, held a respectful forum about the yes case. When he is not a councillor, Marc runs the Gomeroi Culture Academy, a culturally focused leadership experience supporting young people living in Tamworth and helping them to learn their culture. But it is not enough.

I am voting yes not because of the debates that have taken place recently or the advertisements I have seen but because in my role as a community corrections officer based in Armidale, I have seen the disadvantage of my First Nation community and the over-representation of our First Nation brothers in the criminal justice system. First Nation people do not have a good relationship with police, health services, housing and other such services because they are genuinely afraid that they will be punished in some way, either by having their father taken away to jail or having their children taken to out-of-home care. It is not right that our First Nation brothers are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system than go to university. We talk a lot about Closing the Gap and yet here we are, still implementing measures to close the gap and nothing seems to change. As Elder Steve Widders said, "Nothing about us without us."

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (20:20:57):

I speak in support of the motion, and I commend the Hon. Bob Nanva for bringing it to the House. I well remember his inaugural speech in which he spoke so eloquently and passionately on the issue of the Voice. I support a representative body and constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So does the Liberal Party and, I think, the National Party, too. The official position, as I understand it, of the conservative parties is that we should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. The official position of the conservative parties is also, as I understand it, that there should be an advisory body, though there is some difference in terms of the version.

That invites the question: What is the difference between the major parties on this question? As I can discern it, the difference seems to be that members opposite, by and large, with exceptions, do not seem to support the creation of the advisory body through constitutional recognition. In order to make good their argument, in what is a slim difference between the parties of government on this, a number of quite misleading arguments have been advanced. An argument, for example, has been advanced that the Voice will be permanent and will not be able to be changed. If the referendum passes, the day after there will be no Voice. There will simply be a provision in the Constitution. It will not be until the Parliament legislates that there will be a Voice. It is a bit like tax law. You do not put tax law in the Constitution. You just put a head of power in the Constitution to allow the Parliament to legislate for tax. That means that any Voice that is created by legislation will be able to be amended by legislation. So the spectre that is being put, that this will create some sort of Frankenstein monster that cannot be changed, is just not true.

It has also been said that the Voice changes our system of government and has uncertain powers. Again, the only substantive legal effect of the proposed amendment to the Constitution is to give the Parliament the power to create the Voice. There is no uncertainty and, while there has been some divergence of opinion in this area, the predominant and clear view of the large majority of legal experts, respected lawyers and people like retired High Court justice Robert French is that all the arguments being put are some variants of disinformation and misinformation. I will be voting yes with confidence.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (20:24:04):

I speak for The Greens in support of the motion calling for a yes vote in the referendum on Saturday. Whatever the outcome of the referendum—and my heart is full of hope—we must consider this a new dawn and a circuit breaker in the way governments approach issues and policies relating to First Nations people. Eighty per cent of First Nations people support the Voice to Parliament, so regardless of the outcome of the referendum, we must ensure that every measure is taken to listen to the voices of First Nations people when making decisions that will impact the lives of First Nations people and their communities. Doing that is not contingent on the outcome of the referendum. It has become clear through the campaign, and it has always been clear to those paying attention, that First Nations communities are best placed to make decisions about First Nations communities. We must empower First Nations people and listen to their voices, first and always.

On the yes campaign, I have had the enormous privilege of hearing many incredible First Nations voices, particularly women, on why they want and need the referendum to deliver a yes for them and their communities. As Dharawal and Gumbaynggirr woman and cultural heritage practitioner Rowena Welsh-Jarrett said in recent days, "We grew up seeing what we can achieve as communities when we are given the opportunity to come up with localised solutions and have the autonomy over decision-making for our people. So we just want the support from the Australian people to vote yes and give us that opportunity ... to give the people on the ground the autonomy to make the decisions to better our lives for a better country."

Family is Culture

Cobble Cobble woman Professor Megan Davis has worked on constitutional recognition for 20 years and authored the groundbreaking report that has informed this Parliament, exposing the broad failure of our child protection system. She said recently:

Flying our flags don't make a difference if we're not substantively recognised. Australia as a country is very good at symbolism but not good at substance. We usually balk at doing something that will make a difference – but not this time.

We've tried so many things in this country, but we've never tried this. We've never tried the empowerment of First Nations people in the Constitution.

…

Twelve years of closing the gap, and it's not working. Most Australians can see that.

…

Nobody actually talks to communities about what's needed to make change on the ground. And it's communities, who live in these situations, who on a day-to-day basis experience all the issues that impact communities, who know best what's needed.

Now is our time to make a difference. Now is our time to be good in substance. Now is the time for all members to vote yes.

The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (20:27:09):

I cannot support the motion. We need a bit of perspective. Firstly, the Prime Minister and Minister Burney will only have themselves to blame for the failure of the referendum on Saturday. The referendum is not simply about recognition; the Voice proposal goes much further than that. Everyone in this Chamber, I suspect, including myself, and everyone in the Federal Parliament supports recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. But recent polling and polling over the past three months show that the majority of Australians are not going to support this Voice proposal. They are not going to support more bureaucracy. They are not going to support essentially another Chamber. It is more than just an advisory body. It is legally risky. There are unknown consequences about which the Prime Minister cannot provide an answer. It would be divisive, and it is permanent. It is in our Constitution. It is more than an advisory body. What sort of advisory body gets put into a constitution? It becomes permanent. You cannot just undo it. Surely, the Hon. Stephen Lawrence with his experience knows that.

Time expired

Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution for only one group of Australians will permanently divide our country. It creates classes of citizenship through an unknown body that has the full force of the Constitution behind it. I live in Bathurst; everyone knows it. I have consulted with the Wiradyuri traditional Elders and the Bathurst Local Aboriginal Land Council. In Bathurst they do not support the Voice proposal. They are voting no this Saturday. Up the road, different land councils have different views, but there are huge numbers of traditional owners and Elders throughout regional New South Wales who do not support it. The Prime Minister bandies about that 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians support it, but that is just not the case. It is incredibly divisive and it creates so many negative consequences. You have got to bring a country together but all the Voice is doing is dividing it. It is dividing this country. It is clear. You can see it in recent polling. Even in the most recent poll held in the Federal electorate I live in, 72.3 per cent of people polled are going to vote no. The Voice is not what it seems. We do not need more bureaucracy. [.]

Business interrupted

[.]

‍